Connect with us

Indiana

How A FedEx Shipping Hub Has Become A Cash Cow For Indiana

Published

on

How A FedEx Shipping Hub Has Become A Cash Cow For Indiana


Henry and Minh Cheng are jewelry wholesalers who have done business across the U.S. for over three decades, but one state they have never been to is Indiana. That hasn’t stopped Indiana from taking more than $42,000 from the couple without charging them with a crime. How did the state end up with their money? By intercepting packages at a busy FedEx shipping hub at the Indianapolis airport.

Civil forfeiture is often derided as “policing for profit,” but what is happening in Indiana hardly qualifies as policing. The hub in Indianapolis is the company’s second busiest in the U.S. Some 99,000 packages are processed per hour.

Advertisement

For at least several years, police have pulled packages from conveyor belts, run K-9s over them, gotten warrants to open the parcels, and seized money when they find it. Prosecutors for Marion County then file civil forfeiture cases to keep the money. Property owners find themselves fighting for their cash in a court that could be hundreds or thousands of miles away from home.

Indiana prosecutors file these cases without alleging any specific violation of Indiana law. Instead, they say the cash is proceeds of “a violation of a criminal statute.” To get their money back, property owners have to affirmatively defend against allegations that their property is linked to a crime. It is American justice flipped on its head.

For Henry and Minh, shipping products is standard but shipping cash is out of the ordinary. They work with Asian retail jewelers across the country and had shipped gold chains to a regular customer in Virginia. The retailer was slow to submit payment, and a few months after the sale the customer said she could pay promptly in cash. So the bill would be paid right away, Henry and Minh agreed to accept the cash payment and sent her a FedEx shipping label.

The money never got to the Chengs in California. What they got instead was a civil forfeiture notice. At this stage, many people simply give up, as the cost to pay an attorney can quickly equal the amount of money lost. Some who do get a lawyer choose to cut a deal with prosecutors to get only some of their money back.

Advertisement

But the Chengs were upset. They had done nothing wrong and they needed that money for their business. They found attorneys with the Institute for Justice and are fighting back in court.

However, the Chengs are not just defending their money. Their lawsuit also seeks to end Indiana’s FedEx hub scheme.

There is a lot wrong with civil forfeiture, but what Indiana is doing is unusually predatory. First, packages are deemed suspicious by police based on innocuous features. For instance, police have said a package was suspicious because it had tape on the seams. But FedEx actually tells customers to tape seams securely.

Second, getting a drug dog to alert to a package of cash is easy. At least one study showed that 90% of U.S. bills have traces of cocaine. If packages contain only money, no contraband, a dog alert doesn’t reasonably indicate the money is criminal proceeds. Every cash register in America is full of bills that would cause a dog to alert.

Third, Indiana prosecutors don’t allege what specific Indiana law is linked to the money. For the most part, the money seized is in Indiana only by happenstance. The origin and destination of the package are in other states. For Indiana to take someone’s property, it has to say what Indiana law was violated and thus justifies forfeiture.

Advertisement

Indiana police and prosecutors simply aren’t interested in uncovering crimes or arresting criminals. But they like the easy money. So far, since 2022 more than $1 million has been raked in with another $1.5 million working its way through the courts.

Now the Chengs’ lawsuit will put Indiana police and prosecutors in the hot seat for how they are violating Indiana law and the federal Constitution. No one should have to effectively prove their innocence to keep the money they’ve worked hard to earn.



Source link

Indiana

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill

Published

on

College sports wants Congress’ help. Why Indiana Sen. Todd Young voted against bill


The Protect College Sports Act, legislation meant to introduce and codify sweeping reforms related to college athletics, passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on Thursday morning.

It now heads to the Senate floor.

The bill passed out of committee by a 19-9 vote. Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young voted no, his decision reflecting Big Ten concerns over the bill.

Advertisement

A spokesman for Sen. Young told IndyStar, “Senator Young hopes that additional changes can be made to the bill to address concerns raised by the Big Ten.”

Co-sponsored by Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), the Protect College Sports Act represents Congress’ most substantial success so far in a yearslong effort to bring legislative reform to college athletics. Since before the COVID-19 pandemic, leaders in college sports — including the NCAA, member conferences and schools, and other major players — have lobbied for national solutions to what have become state and regional problems.

Several pieces of legislation have been introduced across the last several years, only to fizzle long before reaching the floor of either chamber. The SCORE Act, introduced last year in the House of Representatives, gained some traction and passed out of committee, but was never brought to the floor.

Which makes Thursday’s news meaningful. Moving the Protect College Sports Act to the Senate floor, while not a guarantee of any outcome, potentially takes the bill past a threshold no other such piece of reformative legislation has yet been able to cross.

Advertisement

Cruz told Yahoo! Sports’ Ross Dellenger on Thursday that Cruz believes Sen. Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) is committed to introducing the bill to the Senate floor soon.

The bill provides a legal framework for a host of potential reforms and protections for college sports. It grants limited antitrust protection to the NCAA, places limits on certain things including potential conference realignment, builds safeguards meant to protect non-revenue and Olympic sports, addresses potential broadcast rights reforms, and more.

It enjoys significant backing, and not just among leaders in college sports. This week, the NFL, its players’ association, the National Basketball Players Association and Major League Baseball all voiced their support for the bill.

Two key constituencies not in lockstep on the bill voiced their own concerns Thursday.

Advertisement

In a joint statement issued just after 10 a.m. Thursday, the Big Ten and SEC — far and away the two most powerful conferences and arguably two greatest power centers, full stop, in college athletics — suggested they still hold significant reservations over the bill.

“From the outset, we identified a set of essential revisions to the PCSA necessary for the long-term sustainability of college athletics,” the statement read. “We have worked with both majority and minority staff to advance those revisions, which focus on better supporting student-athletes and stabilizing the college sports environment. We continue to believe revisions are needed to secure our support for the bill.

“Despite our sustained engagement and good faith efforts, these critical revisions have not been accepted.”

The statement went on to note the “several Commerce Committee members that share our concerns and support these recommendations.”

Young is one of several members of the committee representing a Big Ten state, including one of three Republicans. He is the only Republican member of the committee whose state contains multiple schools in the conference.

Advertisement

Allowing for those reservations, Thursday’s news is still significant. It marks the first time a bipartisan bill on the subject has reached this point in the Senate and, should it be brought to the floor, it would be the first such legislation to reach that stage, in either chamber.

The bill could be brought to the Senate floor as early as July, though that timeline remains fluid.



Source link

Continue Reading

Indiana

State regulators OK $71 million rate increase for AES Indiana

Published

on

State regulators OK  million rate increase for AES Indiana


(INDIANA CAPITAL CHRONICLE) – The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission voted 3-1 Wednesday to approve a $71 million electricity rate increase for AES Indiana customers.

That is about 37% of what the utility initially requested and lower than a settlement agreement proposed in October.

Neither Gov. Mike Braun nor consumer advocates are happy with the outcome.

“My top priority is affordability, which is why I am deeply disappointed by the IURC’s approval of another AES rate increase,” he said. “Hoosiers have spent years tightening their belts and making tough financial decisions. It’s time for utility companies to do the same.”

Advertisement

Members of the commission didn’t explain their votes Wednesday. IURC Chair Andy Zay focused his remarks on the process.

“There’s a lot of eyes on this order and what we’re doing today,” he said. “What is before you on the floor is a nearly a year’s worth of work, evidence, deliberations, and considerations that bring us to this moment in this decision. None of this was taken lightly. I want to thank my colleagues for the patience and working through this amongst the auspice of affordability, which is certainly a hot topic now, as well as the resiliency, reliability that we see in this increased demand in electricity.”

The Office of Utility Consumer Counselor last year recommended that state regulators deny AES Indiana’s request for a $193 million base rate increase — instead proposing a $21 million reduction in current rates.

“The AES rate order issued today is an outrage and Hoosiers deserve better!” Counselor Abby Gray said in a statement Wednesday. “Governor Braun has made it clear that ratepayer affordability is a priority, far more than just a ‘hot topic’ as described by the chairman of the IURC today. This order fails the governor’s call to overhaul how utilities are regulated in order to lower bills for ratepayers.”

Gray’s office represents Hoosier ratepayers in regulatory cases.

Advertisement

“The order approves a substantial profit margin for shareholders in addition to a rate increase for customers,” she continued. “It even requires ratepayers to pay approximately $3 million to AES lawyers and experts.”

AES Indiana provides electricity service to about 490,000 homes and businesses in Indianapolis and some nearby areas.

The utility originally sought $193 million in rate increases. The previously proposed settlement agreement dropped that to $91 million, while the final, approved settlement agreement lands at $71 million.

Three IURC members supported the increase: Zay, David Veleta and David Ziegner.

Commissioner Bob Deig voted no. A fifth member, Anthony Swinger, recused himself because he worked on the case previously when he was on the consumer counselor’s office staff.

Advertisement

Ben Inskeep, program director for ratepayer advocacy group Citizens Action Coalition, said utilities across the country often ask for a larger increase than they need, knowing that regulators will disallow “roughly half” of it.

“The latest AES Indiana fuel adjustment clause proceeding shows AES Indiana is actually not only earning all of their allowed profit but over-earning by $19 million their return amount,” he said. “They’re already extremely financially successful at this moment in time, so it’s rather bizarre to even get an extra $71 million dollars approved here.”

Inskeep also noted that the increases will fall disproportionately on residential customers over commercial and industrial users.

Brandi Davis-Handy, president of AES Indiana, said the company has maintained some of the lowest rates in the state for more than a decade “through disciplined planning and a focus on efficiency. We applied the same approach here by working closely with stakeholders to make balanced decisions that keep the system reliable, limit customer impact, and align with the state’s energy pillars.”

AES said for a typical residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, the increase will be less than $5 per month per phase. Phase one rates will be implemented in July 2026 and phase two rates will be implemented in January 2027.

Advertisement

The final order says the utility “will not seek to implement a change in basic rates and charges as a result of its next base rate case before January 1, 2030.”

A new law, however, requires all utilities to file a multi-year rate case in 2029, though implementation wouldn’t happen until 2030.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Indiana

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children

Published

on

Indiana AG seeks execution date for death row inmate convicted in 2010 killings of two children


Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita on Wednesday asked the Indiana Supreme Court to schedule the execution of death row inmate Jeffrey Weisheit.

The filing came just eight days after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in Weisheit’s case.

He was sentenced to death in 2012 for the murders of 5-year-old Caleb Lynch and his 8-year-old sister, Alyssa Lynch, who were killed in a Vanderburgh County house fire in 2010.

Advertisement

In a verified motion filed with the state’s high court, attorneys for the state argued that Weisheit has exhausted all available avenues of review and that no active stay remains in place to prevent his execution.

The state requested that the court set an execution date 30 to 45 days after granting the motion.

“For more than 15 years, the family of these two innocent children has waited for justice,” Rokita said in a Wednesday statement. “A jury lawfully convicted Weisheit and sentenced him to death. That sentence has been upheld through every level of the judicial system. It is long past time to carry out the sentence.”

Weisheit killed the children during the early morning hours of April 10, 2010, according to court records. Prosecutors said he “hog-tied” Caleb and placed railroad flares in the boy’s underwear before igniting them and fleeing the home. Alyssa was also inside the residence when the fire spread through the house, killing both children.

Advertisement

Authorities later apprehended Weisheit in Kentucky after a high-speed chase. Court records indicate he threw a knife at pursuing officers before being taken into custody.

A Vanderburgh County jury convicted Weisheit in 2012 of two counts of murder and recommended a death sentence after finding multiple aggravating circumstances, including that both victims were younger than 12 years old. The trial court subsequently imposed the death penalty.

The case has spent more than a decade moving through state and federal courts.

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld Weisheit’s convictions and death sentence in 2015. His request for post-conviction relief was later denied, and the state’s high court affirmed that decision in 2018.

Weisheit then turned to federal court, filing a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in 2020. The petition was denied in 2022, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the decision last August before rejecting a rehearing request the following month.

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on June 8.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending